Facebook lobbied in favour of upload filters

Sounds to me like "Facebook lobbied for reduced responsibility". After all the non-stop news chastising FB for not censoring things that are fake or otherwise considered bad, I would expect them to want to defer responsibility on what is acceptable so they can just tell the public they are following the law using third party services. Same here w/ audio filters when the RIAA comes knocking, they can just point and say "talk to the filter service" and absolve themselves.

Sure, audio and ads are different at a nuanced level, but you can't have it both ways wrt filtering content in general. Either you mandate it or you accept the consequences of it being open. Putting the onus on the providers to police user content is somewhere in the middle which will bring predictable reactions to remove responsibility whenever possible.

Like in the banking industry, they know that this type of regulation kills small competition emergence and risk of death by lack of innovation. Politians know that. So why are the Europeans playing that game which is against their interest (having local powerful actors)? Why don't they simply vote Russian/Chinese style laws? (Data must be hosted locally and accessible by the government agencies if requested).

Are there somewhere accessible documents where Facebook is allegedly in favor of upload filters, or that they actually lobbied for it? Because only what I see in the article (and some linked articles) is that Facebook admitted that they use some of upload filters (which is not lobbying), or that they prefer cooperation over legislation (which is definitely not lobbying). I probably missed something...

This is called "pulling up the ladder"

Large corporation that is one of the few capable of implementing such a scheme (to whatever degree of 'success') that others cannot afford to do lobbying the government for regulatory capture?

News, at 11!